Thursday, May 31, 2012

A Government Inquisition

You can disobey your church, but just try disobeying your government...

Many of us conservatives who also happen to be of a libertarian bent are conflicted over the whole gay marriage thing. I would prefer my church stay out of politics and focus on the Gospel, but what are they to do when a street punk who hijacked the state gets in their face and taunts them?

An ignorant woman named Lisa Miller wrote an ignorant, condescending column about America's Catholic bishops and their legal battles with Obama's government. She presumes to speak for all Catholics, whom she characterizes as children, with the priests and bishops playing mommy and daddy.

Mommy and daddy are fighting, and the anguished children don’t know where to turn. (Lisa Miller)

Her family analogy, complete with arguing parents and frightened children is cloying and tedious

The conservative fathers — whose motto is “Do what I say” — grew ever more enraged at the doubters and ever more punitive. They directed their ire at any and all rule-breakers: pro-choice Catholics who wanted to take Communion (Lisa Miller)

Has she ever read The Acts of the Apostles? It's full of Peter and Paul telling people, "Do what I say, imitate us, because we are imitating Christ."

Would Peter or Paul grant communion to an open abortion supporter, to avowed homosexuals? Has this unserious Obama girl read the New Testament epistles? There's a whole lot of “Do what I say” in there. That is what Christ commanded them to do! Teach!

Bishops are teachers and moral guides. It’s their job to sort out right from wrong and lead the flock. You may disagree with the content of their message, and you are free to, but to criticize them for defending Church teaching is like criticizing the president for speaking for the US government.

It's a Liberty Thing... Progressives Wouldn't Understand

She makes the common error of mixing two unrelated issues: The Bishops are standing for religious liberty, the ability to run their church as they see fit without government telling them what to do, and her response is to say that over 80% of Catholics see nothing wrong with birth control. Apples and oranges. Churches are free to hold and act on their beliefs, no matter how “out of touch” a hierarchy may be with the flock. It is a matter between the leadership and the congregation, and the state had no standing in such an internal dispute.

Unlike Obama, the bishops can’t make you comply

Go ahead, disobey the bishops, get an abortion, go to Vermont and get married to your gay lover. Torquemada is not going to drag you out of your house and twist your tits with red hot pincers. For you Protestants out there who disobey your conservative church leadership, stern puritan fathers are not going to whip you in the town square like it's 1648 and put you in the stocks for your sinfulness.

Unlike the bishops, President Obama has the full coercive force of the federal government behind his peremptory commands; you better obey! Or you'll have a cloud of regulatory gnats swarming you, and the IRS climbing up your wazoo with 1000 watt searchlights. Comply or die.

The bishops must rely solely on moral suasion. That is the crux of this religious liberty argument, be it gay marriage or birth control. The Church can preach against it and refuse to participate in it, but it can’t stop the state conducting gay marriages and handing out birth control. By the same 1st Amendment token, the state may not compel the church to sanction or participate in such activities.

If you can't see both sides of that constitutional coin, you are one-eye blind.

Obama and the government may have the force of law behind them, but the church has something far more personal.

Why do you think that there are many Catholic families that go to the poor house because they don't stop having children? Well, it's because they truly believe that they're going to hell if they use birth control (of course they can use family planning methods or whatever, but that's besides the point).

Why do you think so many fundamentalist Christians are SO against homosexuality? Because they're being told that they'll burn in hell for all eternity.

I find it funny that you brought up Paul and Peter, because honestly, why care what they said? They weren't Jesus. Jesus didn't really seem to give a crap about homosexuality. Why? Because there's absolutely no reason to care.

You can disobey your church, but just try disobeying your government...

That speaks volumes all by itself. BRAVO!

Of course there was a time not so very long ago that The Church truly functioned as the government. From all reports that didn't work out very well, which is why we are either blest or encumbered by The Establishment Clause depending on your point of view.

I hope someday everyone will be able to understand that it doesn't matter very who we have in "Authority," because it is "Authority," ITSELF, that is the true enemy of mankind.

Does that constitute an argument in favor of anarchy?

Of course not!

What it amounts to is a plea for true JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY.

We gravitate towards totalitarianism, because it's EASIER to let others make our decision FOR us than it us to THINK THINGS THROUGH ON OUR OWN.

Thinking is about the hardest work there is, so most take the paths of least resistance, let "George" do it, and then act surprised and resentful when "George" turns out to be a tyrant with a temperament not unlike Simon Legree.

I'll go out on a limb and say straight out that Authoritarianism in ANY form is inimical to human progress. And that INCLUDES "The Church."

A DEA officer stopped at a ranch in Texas, and talked with the old proprietor.

The officer was surly when told the old rancher, "I’m going to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs."

The old fellow said, "Okay , but don't go in that field over there," as he pointed out the location.

The DEA officer got beet red, and exploded "Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government behind me!"

Reaching into his rear pants pocket, the officer removed his badge and thrust it under the old man’s nose snarling, "See this f*****g badge? It means I can go wherever the f--k I want -- on any land, at any time-- no questions asked -- no answers given. You got that, old man?”

The rancher nodded politely, and quietly went on with his chores.

A short time later, the old man heard loud, terrified screams. Looking up he saw the officer running for his life, as he was chased by the rancher's huge, prize-winning bull. The bull was gaining ground at every step, and it seemed very likely the officer would get gored and trampled to death before he could reach safety.

The shrieking man was pale with terror.

The rancher threw down his tools, ran to the fence, and yelled at the top of his lungs:

I choose to belong to my church. I voluntarily subscribe to church dogma. I do not have those options with federal, state, or local government: I must obey government, or they will make me wish I had …

This is not what our founding fathers had in mind, even if we acknowledge the wisdom of Madison’s observation, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Madison did not imagine government would become Satan, or to make the observation pertinent to the current administration, Iblis.

If the choice is between the rights of the church vs the rights of individuals as granted by the Constitution, the Constitution wins, as it should be.A doctor (who believes in God) should have the right (as an individual) to refuse an abortion; but if the only hospital for 500 miles around is a religious institution and refuses to perform a legal abortion, it's perfectly fine with me, that the government provide the access for a patient to get that legal service. The government should protect the Constitutional rights of a person being denied that right by a religious institution. If you are a person (who does not believe in God) that works for a religious institution, you should not be denied a legal right, that all other Americans receive. Health care should be between a doctor and patient. An employer (who provides health care insurance-which the employee partially pays for) has no business dictating what treatment a doctor provides a patient.If a religious institution denies a legal right to one of their employees, you should not be surprised (or object) to the government providing the means for an individual to get that legal service.Would it be ok for a religious institution to discriminate against people just because that religious institution believes certain people are inferior? Like the Mormons (Romney's church)discriminated against blacks until just 40 years ago. The Constitution is there to protect peoples rights against any that would deny legal rights.It's not good enough to simply say maybe someone should not work for an institution whose policies they disagree with. Constitutional rights do not disappear depending on the policies of your employer.An employer has no right to deny Constitutional rights to their employees, nor should the be involved in the health care choices of an employee. In fact, an employer should not even know what kind of ailment, or treatment they are getting from the company insurance paid doctor.

Abortion is not a constitutional right. Nothing in the law compels a doctor or medical facility to perform the procedure.

Health insurance is not a right, and there is not mandatory slate of services you are constitutionally entitled to.

And, yes, a church can discriminate against categories of people, depending on the type of discrimination. The Supreme Court just affirmed that 9-0.

So when you say "constitutional rights" I agree with you, but you are mixed up about what those are.

You take what health insurance an employer gives you. Some plans are better than others. Try to demand your employer provide you 100% prescription drug coverage with no deductible and see how far you get.

Finally, you confuse someone refusing to provide you something with someone denying you access to it. The Catholic Church has said it will not provide birth control and abortifacients in its health coverage, but it is not denying anyone the ability to get them on their own.

How crafty of leftists to describe Romney’s religion (Mormonism) as intolerant, to use it as an example, while giving wide license to the least tolerant religion, Islam. I have never heard a Mormon threaten anyone to comply with dogma upon pain of death or great suffering. I do not know of a single Mormon who would butcher a daughter’s genitalia. Should anyone think Catholicism unreasonable in modern society, grant license to Shar’ia Law.

The conflict that the religious have with gay marriage stems, I believe, that the concept of marriage is a religious concept and can be found in the sacred writings of their religions. Unfortunately, the chuches gave up their contol over the concept of marriage many years ago. At some point in time the people gave their governments the power to lcense marriage. At some point in time, the right to perform marriage ceremonies was given to judges and justices of the peace. and now, the unintended concequences of those acts ar that some states have decided to recognize gay marriage and we can expect that some day some states will also recognize poligamy and group marriage. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

"If you don't like your church's teachings, you are free to move on. Can't do that with Obama's government--you are stuck."

Try to buy larger than a 16 oz Coke in NY City soon. We're not FREE to do that. If a deli didn't serve them that big, I'd "move on" to the one next door. Can't 'move on' from the ridiculous leftwing RULES.

I think the way this works is that not very smart people (Ducky, McJones, Liberalmann) are working a checklist handed off to them by the bastions of lunacy (MoveOn or TPM). They go to the conservative blogs appearing on their checklist, leave utterly moronic comments, put a check mark in some column to the right, and then file the checklist so that they can get paid. They'd better hurry because the corruption money is running low over at Move-on.

"How crafty of leftists to describe Romney’s religion (Mormonism) as intolerant, to use it as an example, while giving wide license to the least tolerant religion, Islam."

A very astute observation, Mustang. It ought to be obvious, but given the treacherous-- dare we say "satanic?" -- nature of the News and Information Industry, all these wild inconsistencies in liberal logic need to be spelled out exactly as you have done.

I can see a lot of sense in what Jack has said. I agree that using TERROR to keep people in line, and SCARING the LIVING TAR out them to get them to obey is a terrible way to govern. When the thrust of any set of teaching is wholly negative, it makes for mental climate ripe for rebellion and horrible abuse and misunderstanding of of "FREEDOM."

Another paradox we're forced to deal with.

Life is NOT just about slavishly following rules and regulations in order to avoid being punished. At it's best life is about finding wisdom, developing increased understanding, and increasing one's capacity to exercise compassion in every transaction great and small whenever and wherever possible.

There's nothing wrong with acting the part of a "good little boy" or a "good little girl." It gives you a healthy start, but to leave it at that, and imagine yourself "advanced," "enlightened," or "exalted," is to accept a stunted, deprived existence instead of reaching fulfillment.

'Obedience is only a starting point. Blind obedience is a grave danger to the health and strength of your immortal soul.

Where Jack may be wrong is in what-appears-to-be his assumption that his own powers of perception are so great as to obviate all the dictates of Holy Writ.

Also, I must say I strenuously object to lumping in homosexuality with horrors such as cannibalism, child molestation, and drug abuse.

Your logic in this post is exquisite, Kurt. I understand perfectly well what you are driving at. Too bad so many of us -- myself included -- get mired in irritating specific side issues, and miss, therefore, the beauty of the whole picture you've drawn for us?

The issue that should concern us here is NOT Abortion, Homosexuality, Contraception, Transubstantiation versus Consubstantiation, Guitar Masses versus Gregorian Chant and Palestrina, Pedophilia among the Clergy, the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, the vast umber of Bastards Begotten by Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests during the Renaissance or the best way to determine How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a f-----g Pin.

It is not about the worthiness or lack of worthiness of a particular doctrine. It is about the FREEDOM our Constitution GUARANTEES a given Church to be what it believes it OUGHT to be.

I wonder how many realize what the REAL issue is in this post? We're so besotted with our pet peeves and cherished prejudices we often blind ourselves to Reality.

I am going to be honest and say I am not familiar with Catholic doctrine or their hierarchy.

But when it comes down to teaching and standing against immoral behavior whether it is homosexuality, promiscuity, abortion or whatever, I believe they need to stand strong on their convictions, yes, through the pulpit.

The government has been given too much control over the people and we really need to take a stand against this current administration who is undermining our constitutional rights and those of the church.

If it comes down to me choosing the Word of my Holy Heavenly Father and the government, regardless of the consequences, I choose my God.

Anon: "If the choice is between the rights of the church vs the rights of individuals as granted by the Constitution, the Constitution wins, as it should be.

The first thing wrong with your statement is this. The Constitution doesn't GRANT anyone rights. It recognizes the rights of a free people and prohibits the government from infringing on them. That prohibition extends to interference in the church as well as we are guaranteed the free exercise of religion.

The second is the curious notion that the Constitution is operative upon private entities and individuals. It isn't. The laws made under it may affect us, but only if they are held to be in accordance with it. That's what the SCOTUS is all about. Not to determine if you or I are infringing someones rights but whether or not the government, Federal or state, is.

Anonymous said...I think the way this works is that not very smart people (Ducky, McJones, Liberalmann) are working a checklist handed off to them by the bastions of lunacy (MoveOn or TPM). They go to the conservative blogs appearing on their checklist, leave utterly moronic comments, put a check mark in some column to the right, and then file the checklist so that they can get paid. They'd better hurry because the corruption money is running low over at Move-on.

~Louie

You're not too far off there. Ducky simply refuses to use his. The other two have little to draw upon.5/31/12 2:35 PM

Canardo is highly intelligent, but the use of his intellect is generally perverse. Maybe he knows this, and may be doesn't. After years and years of the same old same old I have to admit I can't be sure.

His motives may stem from genuine hatred, but more likely he gets his kicks from making mischief in places where he knows he's not welcome -- a little like people who used to make outrageous anonymous phone calls before the age of Caller ID and Smart Phones took over.

He might just be a very lonely individual with few-if-any social skills who uses the net as a substitute for the meaningful relationships he lacks in real life.

Who knows?

It's probably best for our own peace of mind and sense of equilibrium to exercise compassion and give him the benefit of the doubt.

As I said on my blog, and as is clearly demonstrated here by all the comments, abortion is a religious issue that's been perverted into a legal one.

If men own their bodies, so do women, including whatever is growing inside them. This should be so evident to the dimmest mind that the only reason the fact has become so obfuscated is because religions do their damndest to dominate every aspect of life. Women have always been held down by religions, one more reason why I'm all for spirituality and dead set against all religion. Dogma is bullshit.

Ah. DNA. Zygotes, microscopic beginnings of mammalian fetuses, have DNA!!! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?

Why, RIGHT THERE you have PROOF that every tiny zygote is actually a UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL.

Well, duh, folks. Of course every creature is unique in at least some small way, but since when does a variation in DNA mean that women should not have the freedom of choice to bear children or not? Silverfiddle tells me that this constitutes "personhood" under the law and that means that a tiny clump of cells growing inside a woman has all the rights of a citizen of the United States, and she has no right, suddenly, to say NO, no pregnancy, I don't want one. It says so in some law. That makes it real, and okay, and, and, and everything.

This is worse than stupid, it's religious fervor at it's finest. Human life is not sacred. Try to get used to that fact. Humans are not sacred. Babies are not sacred. Fetuses are not sacred, and all you religious fanatics and all your laws and beliefs and dogma don't change a thing.

What you need to do is conquer your desire to dominat women and start seeing them as "persons", yes, real actual persons, with the same right to do what they wish with their bodies exactly as you have the right to do with yours. I know it frightens you to think of not being able to control women, but try. Work at it. You can do it.

There used to be a lot of laws based on religion that have since been revoked. They were called "Blue Laws", and were laws like No driving your car on Sunday, No cussing within sight of a church, and so on.

Any law based on religious convictions is a bad law. Before anyone starts, just because there's the 10 Commandments doesn't mean that laws against theft or murder and such are religious laws. I'm talking about specific religious convictions resulting in laws based on those convictions. They have no place in our society.

It's impossible to get anyone who is steeped in dogma to see reality, and the guys who wrote our Constitution knew this. That's why they wrote Separation of Church and State into that document, to keep us safe from religious oppression. It's been a constant fight ever since, though, and it's sure kept our Supreme Court busy with the constant challenges to our freedoms by organized religions.

I have no problem with people who have some faith or other. The problem I have is when they keep trying to shove their ignorant superstitions into my life. It's rude, hypocritical, and un-American.

There is a God. Maybe if some people would stop reading books other people who haven't a clue wrote, listening to them tell you that they have a direct line to God that you don't, singing songs to God and giving away their money to some slick talker, maybe then they could finally discover that God has been right next to them the whole time.

Interesting you put it this way. The Catholic Bishops choose to pick a fight with the government of USA. Their grounds for their position is the separation of church and state as written in Constitution. The church wants to be able to tell the state what to do but the church does not want the state to tell the church what to do.

You are hoping to show how brutal the people's government of USA is against the poor little Catholic Church. In the end though, it is simple.

Church/Synagog/Mosques/Temples is a corporate entity operating within the rules of the state. The religious entity must meet the standards as established by the state, the rule of law.

"By the same 1st Amendment token, the state may not compel the church to sanction or participate in such activities."

Too bad history is against you on this. Don't believe me? Ask the Mormon Church in USA, how many wives can a man have?

Even today you and your blog support and advocate for active state sanctions against 'church' activities. Do you not want the state to ban Islamic Sharia law like in Oklahoma ?

"If you can't see both sides of that constitutional coin, you are one-eye blind." Nyuck nyuck nyuck

Ema: "Their grounds for their position is the separation of church as state as written in Constitution."

Again I ask. Where does it say that? The only mention of religion in the Constitution is the First Amendment prohibition against the Federal government establishing any one particular religion or interfering in it's free exercise.

The anti establishment clause itself was included not to keep religion out of politics but to protect the differing 'established' religions of several of the New England states, since the then majority church was then the Church of England. Congregationalists in Connecticut and Massachusetts remained de jure or de facto 'established' for decades.

I wouldn't say that Black Sheep is one of the sheeple. I visit his blog fairly regularly. Certainly, he and I disagree on some things. Nevertheless, I do find his posts interesting -- and varied in an unusual way, too (I can't quite describe that aspect).

Of course I don't. You are a good little statist, and that exact line of thinking has been enunciated by many a dictatorship.

Your ignorance of the issue is stunning:

The church wants to be able to tell the state what to do but the church does not want the state to tell the church what to do.

No, the church is not telling the state what to do. They are not demanding an end to government handing out birth control. They just don't want any part of it.

Also, each has a different burden. The Church may advocate for its views in the public square, but the state may not tell the church how to conduct its internal business. See the recent 9-0 supreme court smackdown of Obama.

Black Sheeple is a guy. but that's the kind of sexual slur I expect from someone who comes to my blog and says “So, you support abortion right up until the birth of the child?” when I never said anything remotely like that, but who merely wants to start an argument by attacking me with a question that's intended to make me look like evil. That's what immature people do when they spout religious drivel and have no actual point at all.

No one supports last day abortions, you specious flamer. It's an idiot question. You ask that people not flame on your blog and then you go do it on mine? What a hypocrite you are!

I'm surprised no one quoted the late Ronald Reagan in the attempts to deal with overly assertive, know-it-all liberals.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't true.”

I've always loved that.

The only trouble with it is that it applies equally to doctrinaire adherents and partisan bigots of any religious, political or philosophical persuasion.

Moral Chauvinism, if I may coin a term, may be just as inadequate a method for dealing with serious problems as any other form of blind, unthinking devotion to a cause or set of principles imperfectly understood.

You would like Daniel J. Flynn's book, Intellectual Morons, in which he attacks blind adherence to ideology. He is a conservative and goes after mostly liberal shibboleths, but he slaughters a few libertarian and conservative sacred cows as well.

"... the state may not tell the church how to conduct its internal business."

Oh pshaw. The state does it all the time. Heck, you even call for the state to ban followers of Islam from practicing their internal religious practices and 'creeping Sharia law'.

Jews and Christians are allowed, by their "holy-books" to sexually abuse, beat, and kill their daughters, wives, and slaves (and then blame the victims). The supreme secular state has clearly decided to that these backward and evil internal religious practices must stop and the Constitutional authority to "prohibit the free exercise thereof" is the tool.

___________

FreeThinke

"... are you truly guilty of "name-calling?""

-Can't talk about the subject? Attack the person, call em a name, that'll show'em.- But hey where would this blog be without name calling?

...and the Constitutional authority to "prohibit the free exercise thereof" is the tool.

I think you're mixed up. Let me help you. Here is the complete text of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

So much for supremacy when the states can alter the limits and scope of Federal authority at will.

'The supreme secular state has clearly decided that these backward and evil internal religious practices must stop and the Constitutional authority to "prohibit the free exercise thereof" is the tool.'

I'll type slowly so you might be able to follow the point.

USA is a secular state. USA law is supreme. Thus USA law establishes the supreme secular state.

I do. Well enough to know that the context that matters is that of the Constitution. That instrument clearly delineates those areas which fall outside the purview of the government, and the free exercise of religion is clearly out of bounds. That explains the recent SCOTUS decision that SF mentioned, where the court unanimously ruled against the EEOC attempting to enforce an ADA based anti discrimination suit against a religious based school.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

This is not Britain where changing the law can effectively alter the Constitution. That can only be done with the assent of 38 of the states. It is the Constitution that is supreme, not the law. To paraphrase an old Japanese adage, the Constitution may upset the law but the law may not upset the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers and those who fought in the Continental Army were our original Western Heroes, guided by the thinkers of the Enlightenment and following in the footsteps of great warriors like Jan Sobieski and Charles Martel.